The blog of Aaron "Sleazy" Elias

Science finds that losers tend to be lefties (duh!)

Recently a reader remarked on this blog that social science research falls into two categories. It either confirms what is blatantly obvious, or it is obviously bullshit. Here is a recent research result in the former category: Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men? by a bunch of academics from Brunel, LSE, and Harvard. Brunel is garbage-tier, the other two are leftist strongholds but undoubtedly renowned universities.

The title is quite a mouthful. In plain English, “bodily formidability” translates to “looks imposing” while “facial formidability” means “has an attractive face”. Lastly, “sociopolitical egalitarianism” is academe-speak for socialism. Thus, that article could also be titled, “Do good-looking men want to financially support the underclass?” The answer to that question does not require research grants to pursue, presumably, if you keep in mind that good looks are positively correlated with intelligence, which is positively correlated with income. If you make more money, you want to keep it, not spend it on taxes. This seems pretty self-evident. If it’s not, then get your PhD pursuing that question, Bucko!

In the study above, it was found that imposing looking men do not want to support losers, while men who look like pushovers totally love it. Oh, excuse my plebeian language. Let me quote those dudes instead:

First, as expected, bodily formidability did relate negatively to sociopolitical egalitarianism. (…) As noted above, these formidability-egalitarianism relationships could be the result of men calibrating their egalitarianism to their own formidability, or alternatively could be due to increased muscularity-striving among less-egalitarian men, or to egalitarianism and muscularity-striving both depending on a third variable.

It makes you laugh, doesn’t it? “Muscle-striving” means “works out”. You really can’t make this shit up, my dear muscle-striving, vagina-pursuing, socioeconomically-advancing less-egalitarian readers. Oh, and don’t forget to adjust some dials in your brain to make sure you calibrate your vagina-pursuing and muscle-striving properly. (Imagine what university would be like without all the bullshit.)

8 thoughts on “Science finds that losers tend to be lefties (duh!)”

there’s a great quote by Feynman where he gets invited to a sociology professors meeting and goes to make himself more knowledgeable. He ends up being terrified because he doesn’t understand the writing. Here’s the quote:
——
So I stopped – at random – and read the next sentence very carefully. I can’t remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: “The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels.” I went back and forth over it, and translated. You know what it means? “People read.”
——
The purpose of jargon in non bullshit fields is brevity. In contrast, in most academic fields the purpose is actually to expand. To take simple concepts that can be easily explained and cloak them up in semi-made-up terms.

Academics get rated on published research. Not surprisingly, lots of social science research is pretty silly to begin with, and a common tactic is to make the wording incomprehensible to make it seem more legitimate. I remember one professor praising another’s article, saying “It’s brilliant. I cannot understand it all.”

Research suggests that a lot of right wing people have authoritatian personality types. This suggests that good looking men not only do not want the support the underclass, they might actually want to oppress the underclass.

translation: some are born alpha. others are born beta. if the beta is challenging the alpha that protects him and provides for him. he’ll be in for a rude awakening. at best the alpha will refuse him resources. but most likely the beta is in for a ass kicking and possibly will face exile. sounds just like nature to me. not really anything new. works this way forever. some wild animals have the same group dynamics. equality doesn’t really exist. ( LOL! it’s a social construct ) people are not equal. they will never be equal. yet these left wing loony’s demand equal outcomes without doing equal work. yeee sorry not going to happen. if you want to eat at my table you’ll have to conform to my rules.

GTFO. Google the term “facial formidability”, and you’ll see that almost all references are to the article I mentioned. It is jargon, which is supposed to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Furthermore, social scientists don’t “measure” such variables like a thermometer measures temperature.

These guys are trying to identify facial landmarks which are correlated with strength. Overall facial attractiveness can’t predict strength, but it seems certain facial landmarks can although the link is weak.

It seems that everybody just makes up their own pompous terms. The first link I clicked on had “Geometric morphometrics of male facial shape” in its title. Can you actually think for yourself or are you automatically in awe when you accidentally come across a (any) paper? Most research is incredibly shoddy, and your way of arguing is the same. Just look at your original comment and think about how you could have rephrased it in order to be taken seriously. The mere fact that you believe that social scientists can perform accurate measurements is enough proof of your inability to reason logically.